Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: hUPO NOMON in Rom 6:14-15: Cranfield vs. James Dunn vs. X

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "moon-ryul jung" <moon AT saint.soongsil.ac.kr>
  • To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: hUPO NOMON in Rom 6:14-15: Cranfield vs. James Dunn vs. X
  • Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:57:30 -0500


Dear Loren,
good questions and comments. They made me really think.
See below my response to your comments.

[Loren]
>
> > > In commenting on Rom. 6:14 Dunn notes, "As in
> > > 5:20-21
> > > the law is put together with sin and death as a
> > > way of
> > > characterizing the dominant powers of the old age,
> > > the
> > > age of Adam" (Vol I, p. 339)..."Here, for the
> > > first
> > > time in his letter, Paul depicts the law as a
> > > power
> > > over [humanity]" (p. 352). I agree with these
> > > statements.
>
>
> [Mark]
>
> > Loren,
> > I do not agree with those statements for 5:20-21, or
> > 6:14. The law in
> > 5:20-21 makes it clear what sin is. It is that
> > which, thereafter, the
> > traffic officer will appeal to to make it undeniable
> > that you could not take
> > a left turn there when writing up your ticket, since
> > the law was posted on a
> > sign reading, "No Left Turn." Otherwise, it might be
> > disputable whether a
> > left turn at that location was a violation of the
> > law or not which could be
> > ticketed.
> >
> > Sin reigned in death, not law. Law was given to help
> > avoid sin for the
> > righteous ones of God, by making it clear what
> > was sin.
>
>
> [Loren]
>
> Mark,
> Paul says in 6:14 that “sin will have no dominion over
> you since you are not under the law”, implying that
> “sin WILL have dominion over you if you ARE under the
> law”. To me, it’s pretty clear that Paul has put the
> law squarely on the side of sin/death -- and that only
> in 7:7-25 does he manage to “save” the situation by
> severing the link between sin/death and the law. This
> may be splitting hairs, but I think it's an important
> point.
>
>

[Moon]
(1)
The usual reading of Rom 6:14 is that
sin's dominion over us has to do with our being under the Law.
This reading is obtained by reading "
sin will not be the master of you, because you are not under the Law".
(omitting the part "but under grace")

From it, we can state:
(a) if you are not under the Law, sin will not be the master of you.

From (a), many derive (b):

(b) if you are under the Law, sin will be the master of you.

It does not hold, in fact. This is a logical fallacy.

In fact, what we have is:

(c) If you are not under the Law but under grace, sin will not be
the master of you.

My contention is that here "under the Law" and "under grace" may not be
exclusive of each other. I would like to take "not under the Law but under
grace" to mean that "under grace" overlaps "not under the Law". Of
course,
it is also possible for "under grace" to overlap "under the Law", unless
we start from the premise that if "under the Law" then "not under grace".

Now my question is: is this interpretation against the grammar or the
structure of OU GAR ESTE hUPO NOMON ALLA hUPO CARIN ?

(2) You said:
> only in 7:7-25 does he manage to “save” the situation by
> severing the link between sin/death and the law.

[Moon]
Right. To know the nature of this severing, we need to interpret
Rom 7:1 - 6. I take "you" and "we" here to refer to Jewish believers.
Because in Rom 7:1 Paul says he is addressing those who know the Law.
Because those who experienced the passion of sin that is through the Law
(Rom 7:5) are none other than Jews.

For further debate, let me expose my attempt to read Rom 7:1-6.
I take "dying to the Law through Christ" to mean that Jewish
believers are no longer stick to the Law's identity requirement,
e.g. getting circumcision.
The question of adultery mentioned in this passage implies that
putting away this requirement would amount to adultery.
To the Jews, God was their husband.
But by the death of Christ, they were released from
the restraint of the Law, and could accept Gentile believers
without requiring circumcision. Thereby they bore many fruits,
e.g. Gentile believers.

Rom 7:5 presents a great difficulty to this interpretation.

For when we were in the flesh, the passion of the sin that is
through the Law was working in the members of our bodies, with the
result of bearing fruit to death.

I take this passage to provide the context for Jewish believers'
dying to the Law. When they were in the flesh, i.e. before knowing Christ,
they were controlled by the passion of sin that is through the Law.
What is that passion of sin? I would take it to refer to the mindset
(the envy spirit, so to speak) of the Jews that they alone are
God's people because they have the Law.

This raises the question whether the Law is sin.
Paul says many interesting things about the relationship
between sin and the Law, which may be interpreted in many
different ways without the context. Whatever he said, he said them
in order to conclude that the Law is no sin, but holy and spiritual.
Note Rom 7.1: THEREFORE, the law is holy.


Perhaps, Chap 7 talks about the sin of the Jews against the Gentiles,
which the Jews committed because of the previlege they had
as a Law-people. They were commanded not to envy. But
They had an envious spirit against the Gentiles, requiring
Gentiles to become Jewish in order to get into the covenant.

Note: I take "I" as the representative of Israel, who "suffered" from
the Law. (Cf. Douglas Moo). Chap 7 reports the experience of Israel
with respect to the Law, in order to answers some questions about the Law,
which were incidentally raised while making certain statements
related to the Law.

Wild idea? I think so. I wonder how Mark thinks of this interpretation.

Moon
Moon-Ryul Jung
Associate Professor,
Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea

s




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page